Cooperation consists in choosing: boycott, cooperation, or predation. The value of predation never ceases. It’s merely unstated. But exists.
Source date (UTC): 2015-11-13 12:40:00 UTC
Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity
-
The most common false premise of ethics is to start with the assumption of moral
The most common false premise of ethics is to start with the assumption of moral and ethical preference, rather than of killing and taking.
Source date (UTC): 2015-11-13 12:33:00 UTC
-
The first question of ethics is why don’t I kill you and take your land, women,
The first question of ethics is why don’t I kill you and take your land, women, and things – not assuming cooperation as the starting point.
Source date (UTC): 2015-11-13 12:29:00 UTC
-
Propertarianism and Testimonialism provide the Wilsonian synthesis: merging scie
Propertarianism and Testimonialism provide the Wilsonian synthesis: merging science, philosophy morality and law. https://t.co/7rYh6VKb3k
Source date (UTC): 2015-11-11 18:12:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/664505907292819456
-
and Testimonialism provide the Wilsonian synthesis: merging science, philosophy
http://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/664505907292819456/photo/1/large?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=664505907292819456Propertarianism and Testimonialism provide the Wilsonian synthesis: merging science, philosophy morality and law. https://t.co/7rYh6VKb3k
Source date (UTC): 2015-11-11 13:12:00 UTC
-
WE STILL JUSTIFY THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT? (feminist trigger warning)(individualist
https://www.reddit.com/r/RedPillWomen/comments/3phro9/renegotiating_the_marriage_contract/CAN WE STILL JUSTIFY THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT?
(feminist trigger warning)(individualist trigger warning)
RE: (https://www.reddit.com/r/RedPillWomen/comments/3phro9/renegotiating_the_marriage_contract/ )
1) Pretty good analysis. I’d recommend reading the origin and development of the family and property by Engels. That is a more accurate history. It’s short and well written.
2) Biologically, females were treated as (and therefore were) our property under hostile competition, they were an exchange of property between males in the pastoral era’s development of formal property, and ‘love’ (mate selection by attraction) is historically, a luxury good (and rare) – even if terribly eugenic for selection purposes. The development of property is what allowed males to re-take control of reproduction from females.
3) Polygamy was and is practiced by the majority of cultures, but all major religions and philosophies attempted to break this practice in order to ‘soak up’ the majority of ‘troublesome’ males who otherwise failed to reproduce (something like 30% of males failed to reproduce – although I have seen estimated numbers as high at 70%). And even once we encounter monogamy (property), something like 20-25% of births are caused by mates outside of marriage (which is a dirty secret that is showing up now that we have massive databases of family trees combined with genetics.)
4) Human Females still demonstrate r-selection behavior, much less in-group protection (more cheating), and lower loyalty. They are practical creatures. For most of history women were considered the root of all evil, and it was only in the victorian era that we stated otherwise – although this compromises the majority of our current literature.
5) One can position marriage as a compromise between reproductive strategies; or as a social convenience necessary for peace and prosperity; or as a epistemological necessity for the purpose of meritocratic calculation of reproductive utility, required of an advanced society and economy; Or all of the above. My standing concern is that women have more CONTROL than men do, and men higher RISK and shorter LIVES than women do. So to some degree, for us to persist, women remain a herd men control, or a herd other men control. Women are a resource – an expensive resource.
6) So under INDIVIDUALISM it is difficult to make take the position that marriage is beneficial for either man or woman. Under NATIONALISM (or tribalism or kinship) it is difficult to conceive of a condition under which males retain access to females without the cooperation, assistance, defense, of other males.
7) I want to protect my genes and my relations so I want my female kin to be free to do the best they can WITHOUT betraying my male relations control of the reproductive resource of women. In other words, private benefit of free reproduction is limited by public harm from free reproduction, because organization into groups matters.
I think the last is the least pleasant most accurate analysis.
And (unpleasantly) that is where I end up.
Source date (UTC): 2015-11-10 07:50:00 UTC
-
Truth is Expensive, But The Returns Warrant It, and Morality Demands It
[I]t was very expensive to create settlements by prohibiting predation by the development of armies and professional warriors. But we obtained the ability to accumulate capital, and to create a division of labor. It was very expensive to create property rights by prohibiting parasitism through law and indoctrination. But we obtained the ability to create a market, money, and prices. It was very expensive to create literacy by creating printing and education. But we dramatically expanded human productivity, and demonstrated intelligence. It was very expensive to create scientific thought through a century of education. But we dramatically reduced transaction costs, increased human productivity, and increased demonstrated intelligence. It will be equally expensive to create TRUTHFULNESS – or, perhaps, restore truthfulness to the scientific era. And the gains will will obtain from truthfulness will be equal to if not surpass the gains we obtained from literacy. A truthful world is as hard for us to imagine as a scientific world was for religio-rationalists to imagine, as it was for the pre-literate to imagine the literate, as it was for the barbaric to imagine the urban. That something is an expensive commons to produce is not a criticism. It is a question of returns. Mankind must eventually make this transition. We can do it now, and free ourselves of the threats to our civilization – the civilization that invented truth. Or we can experience a peak beyond which we fail to pass, as did the Greeks and the Romans. As did the Byzantines and Persians. As did the Austrians and Spanish. As did the French and German. And let our civilization pass from this earth – disappearing, and becoming subject to peoples more barbaric than we. I am willing to die to save my civilization, my race, my people from another dark age, and to instead transform mankind from the merely rational and scientific to the truthful stage of evolution. This isn’t a cost I expect everyone to agree to bear. But it is a cost I know many of us are willing to bear – and to bear gladly and heroically. We can purge all forms of lies from this earth. And in doing so, transform man into gods. For what is a god but a wielder of truth? And what is a devil, but a wielder of error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit? Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kyiv, Ukraine
-
Truth is Expensive, But The Returns Warrant It, and Morality Demands It
[I]t was very expensive to create settlements by prohibiting predation by the development of armies and professional warriors. But we obtained the ability to accumulate capital, and to create a division of labor. It was very expensive to create property rights by prohibiting parasitism through law and indoctrination. But we obtained the ability to create a market, money, and prices. It was very expensive to create literacy by creating printing and education. But we dramatically expanded human productivity, and demonstrated intelligence. It was very expensive to create scientific thought through a century of education. But we dramatically reduced transaction costs, increased human productivity, and increased demonstrated intelligence. It will be equally expensive to create TRUTHFULNESS – or, perhaps, restore truthfulness to the scientific era. And the gains will will obtain from truthfulness will be equal to if not surpass the gains we obtained from literacy. A truthful world is as hard for us to imagine as a scientific world was for religio-rationalists to imagine, as it was for the pre-literate to imagine the literate, as it was for the barbaric to imagine the urban. That something is an expensive commons to produce is not a criticism. It is a question of returns. Mankind must eventually make this transition. We can do it now, and free ourselves of the threats to our civilization – the civilization that invented truth. Or we can experience a peak beyond which we fail to pass, as did the Greeks and the Romans. As did the Byzantines and Persians. As did the Austrians and Spanish. As did the French and German. And let our civilization pass from this earth – disappearing, and becoming subject to peoples more barbaric than we. I am willing to die to save my civilization, my race, my people from another dark age, and to instead transform mankind from the merely rational and scientific to the truthful stage of evolution. This isn’t a cost I expect everyone to agree to bear. But it is a cost I know many of us are willing to bear – and to bear gladly and heroically. We can purge all forms of lies from this earth. And in doing so, transform man into gods. For what is a god but a wielder of truth? And what is a devil, but a wielder of error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit? Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kyiv, Ukraine
